Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Nullifies Differences Between Bash, Csh
Andreas(R) writes "Red Hat Software has revealed that future versions of the distribution will hide the differences between command-line user interfaces, creating a 'more unified shell prompt experience'. 'I don't mind if they rebrand and unify the GNOME and KDE interfaces,' said one Linux longhair. 'Frankly, I rarely use GUIs. But when they start messing with my CLI, then it's personal. I'm not going to sit here and let Red Hat infect my beloved tcsh with those annoying quirks from bash." Ah, nothing like satire that only a small group will truly grok. *grin*
Please don't let RedHat make emacs like vi
?-|||-----x<*))))><
/bin/false
It really is much more secure.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
If you hadn't noticed it's under the "funny/humour" catogory. Turn this catagory off in your preferences if you dont want it.
M-x viper-mode.
I've never seen such a collection of knee-jerk humorless reactionaries in my life!!! I think the responses to this article are funnier than the article itself.
Warning: serious reactions to this article will go on your permanent record!!!
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
To be sure, I give the fuckers /dev/random. If lucky, it'll screw their terminal and they won't bother me.
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
The article itself, or the fact that it seems like the majority of posters have failed to:
A) RTFA
B) Notice that this is "from the funny-funny-haha dept."
C) Read the editors comment Hemos left in the little blurb once again clueing them into the fact that the article is a joke just like the ignorant fools who have started to bitch already.
This bit had me rolling on the floor..
The head of the Emacs Flame War Re-enactment Society (a group that re-enacts the great Usenet emacs versus vi flames wars of the 20th Century) said, "Red Hat is destroying our cultural heritage!
Ahh.. I know guys who belong to war re-enactment societies.. and this about sums them up..
_But when they start messing with my CLI, then it's personal. I'm not going to sit here and let Red Hat infect my beloved tcsh with those annoying quirks from bash._
... :-p )
The solution is quite simple: don't use redhat and quit whining. You don't own bash or csh and you sure as hell don't even remotely have the right to complain about the modifications redhat is making. It's free software and nobody is forcing you to use it.
*blink**blink* Henh?
Ohhh.... Is this thing on? Good. *AHEM*
Here ladies and gentlemen we have the common Nolifeium Nonhumourum Slashdoticus. Notice the serious countenance, the white skin and it's most distinctive marking, the flat, bald forehead from all of the jokes that go flying just over it. This particular species is closely related to the Userum Newbius Nocluseies, who also are prone to spouting off at the mouth with no clue and are usually just as humour impared. Please move along now, there's lot's more to see.
Soko
(Like the Smarticus Assunum Typesum
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
"Dude, you are right, it's a fake story! It's Satire! THEY ARE NOT REALLY DOING THIS SO CALM DOWN! Dind't the foot as the Icon give you Clue #2? :x:q or was that ^q? Damn Vimacs!"
I think the real comedy here isn't the satirical write-up, but the responses to it.
Yeah, it's one gigantic game of "Spot the Looney".
I'm not sure what're funnier, the article, or the people who either didn't read the article, or who didn't get that it was satire.
I think RH is limiting choice now.
Too many options is bad sometimes. I mean what would happen if a news oriented website were to give you the option of reading both regular news and satirical news on the same page?!
Oh wait..
by at least one cd, if they removed emacs.
I told a coworker of mine that the 2.4.x kernel cannot support a statically compiled emacs, because of the 2TB file limit.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
.. and it's actually pretty good, especially for newbies. For instance, "redhat-list-my-files-in-current-directory" is a little heavily branded, but it makes a lot more sense than "ls" to a new user. And the "Are you sure you want to run 'xyz' (Y/n)" prompts after every command saved my ass a couple times. Getting rid of all commands that can delete files is also great for security, and that's definitely an advantage over other distros.
The only thing that really tripped me up was that Red Hat mapped "delete character" to the "d" key (probably to fix the whole backspace/delete confusion once and for all). And the character D is mapped to ^X-F4 which is a little hard to type at first but you get used to it. Since they made this change system-wide I learned it pretty fast.
All in all a step in the right direction. Of course power users can always use another distro, or just type their system's source code onto the hard drive from scratch or whatever it is they do for fun on Saturday nights.
It really is much more secure.
Actually, in some old *nixes, that absolutely was NOT the case. If the shell in
Not that this behavious persists today, but just to be safe, use
Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.
Seriously, I often have vi running in the left window and emacs in the right hand one. It's a good mental exercise to switch back and forth between them frequently. I wish I could train myself to use my right hand for emacs and the left for vi, but I'm not there yet. Maybe I could do it with two chord keyboards?
Heathen.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
/bin/false
That is simply not true...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
And according to this VI is more popular than sex, proving that the computer is the geek's tool.
Hover your mouse pointer over the Monty Python foot at the top of the article. What does it say?
"It's funny. Laugh."
Hell, the foot itself ought to be a clue as to the nature of the article. If you're a humorless ass, just pass on this article and others like it. The rest of us won't miss you.
"And now for something completely different..."
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
"Over the years, we've received nearly 1,000 technical support calls from people that have accidentally started vi and couldn't figure out how to do anything -- or even how to quit."
I resent that! I know how to quit when using vi! ALT-F2! kill -9 vi!
-- Jim
When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi *and* Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like, 'C-h for help' and '"foo" File is read only'. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.
/bin/ed /usr/ucb/vi /usr/bin/emacs
l o?
Ed, man! !man ed
ED(1) UNIX Programmer's Manual ED(1)
NAME
ed - text editor
SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
---
Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED! "Ed is the standard text editor." And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990
Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
"Ed is the standard text editor." Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:
golem$ ed
?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hel
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity.
"Ed is the standard text editor." Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
TEXT EDITOR.
When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their "edlin" on a UNIX standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
---BELOW this is garbage filled to pass IDIOTIC lameness filter the fuckwads at Slashdot implemented. I know Me how antidest guerge Now heusdys I dont qwnas Prutwew
You can't be a 'windows nerd' - it's an oxymoron....
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
As p3d0 said, shells behave the opposite. (Although there once was an odd bug in - what was it, Ultrix? - where csh behaved the opposite, i.e. didn't behave the opposite, i.e. was buggy, with regards to the && and || short-circuit operators. But then, csh history is replete with odd bugs.)
But to expand on the point: in Unix, the exit status of a program is an integer (7 unsigned bits, anyway: trying to use more is not portable). Convention dictates that 0 is normal termination, non-zero is abnormal, and anything over 128 means it was killed by a signal rather than the exit() function. (Which signal? Subtract 128 to find out.) Furthermore, many programs document their various abnormal exit status numbers to mean various failure cases.
Note that even MS-DOS (and all of its misshapen get) uses the zero / greater-than-zero convention. In DOS, a process's return value is called the "errorlevel", which indeed more accurately describes its main purpose.
This convention also goes a little deeper in Unix. Most system calls and many C library functions (remember, the standard C library was first defined on Unix) return 0 for success (or similar concepts: "equality" in the string compare function strcmp()) and non-zero for failure ("inequality" in strcmp()). Even system calls which return other meaningful integers (open(), for example) generally use >=0 for success and -1 for failure.
So it may make no sense from a boolean logic point of view but zero==true is surprisingly widespread. Mostly because there is often only one way to succeed at a task but many ways to fail, and it's useful to be able to report specific failure modes.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
>> To be sure, I give the fuckers /dev/random. If lucky, it'll screw their terminal and they won't bother me.
/dev/random.
But if you're supremely unlucky, it'll drop them to a SUID root perl process. Do not taunt
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
The home page is whatever Malda wants to make it. Slashdot started as Rob Malda's pet project, and that's basically what it will always be. It's an obscenely popular project and makes some money (maybe) now, but it's still his personal project.
Deal with it. No one, especially Rob, cares what you think "should" be on the main page.